Overview
Executive Summary
This past year marked a fundamental shift in the legal and regulatory framework governing college athletics. What began as a series of court challenges to longstanding National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) restrictions has evolved into a structured, enforcement-oriented system governing athlete compensation, Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) activity, and institutional compliance. With the implementation of the House v. NCAA settlement (the "House settlement" or "settlement"), the launch of the College Sports Commission (CSC), and heightened scrutiny of sports betting integrity, stakeholders across the college sports ecosystem enter 2026 facing new operational, legal, and reputational risks.
This client alert highlights the most significant sports law developments of 2025 and outlines what athletic departments, conferences, agencies, collectives, sponsors, and athletes should be monitoring in 2026.
I. House v. NCAA: From Litigation To Live Governance
In June 2025, the federal district court granted final approval to the House v. NCAA settlement, resolving multiple antitrust actions challenging NCAA restrictions on athlete compensation.1 The settlement authorizes participating Division I institutions to share revenue directly with student-athletes, subject to annual caps and compliance obligations, and provides for approximately $2.8 billion in retrospective compensation to former athletes.
The settlement also prompted sweeping NCAA rule changes applicable to Division I institutions opting into revenue sharing, including the elimination of scholarship limits in exchange for roster caps and expanded NIL reporting obligations.2
A central feature of the settlement's architecture was the creation of an independent oversight and clearance regime, ultimately operationalized through the College Sports Commission.
II. The College Sports Commission and Nil Go: Enforcement Arrives
Pursuant to the House settlement framework, the CSC launched in mid‑2025 to administer NIL reporting, clearance, and enforcement.3 The CSC is led by Bryan Seeley, a former US Department of Justice attorney and longtime chief of investigations for Major League Baseball. Later in 2025, the CSC appointed Katie Medearis, a former federal prosecutor, as head of investigations and deputy general counsel, reinforcing the enforcement‑oriented design of the new regime.
The CSC operates two primary systems. First, participating institutions must use the College Athlete Payment System (CAPS) to allocate and track revenue‑sharing payments.4 This is intended to ensure institutions do not exceed the capped amount of revenue-sharing payments available to be made to athletes. For example, for the 2025-2026 academic year, universities in the most prominent conferences can pay their student athletes up to $20.5 million but not more.5 Second, in partnership with Deloitte, the CSC launched NIL Go, a centralized disclosure platform requiring all Division I student‑athletes to report third‑party NIL agreements valued above $600.6 The system is intended to evaluate whether reported arrangements reflect fair market value rather than impermissible pay‑for‑play. Steptoe analyzed the CSC’s inaugural NIL deal‑flow report in a prior client alert, available here.
III. Title IX Challenges to the House Settlement: Early Appeals
While the House settlement successfully established the CSC and a new compensation framework, it has not been without challenge. Plaintiff class members initiated Title IX‑based appeals within days of approval, contending that the settlement’s damages and compensation model fails to provide substantially proportionate benefits to male and female athletes and improperly relies on historical revenue patterns.7
The filing of these appeals has paused distribution of the settlement’s back‑pay component to former athletes pending appellate review, creating uncertainty regarding timing and structure of payments. These issues will not be resolved before 2026, underscoring the need for institutions to evaluate Title IX implications in the absence of judicial guidance, while revenue‑sharing models are being implemented.
IV. Other Post-House Nil Litigation
Beyond the Title IX appeals, 2025 saw continued NIL-related litigation by current and former college athletes. With respect to former athletes seeking compensation outside the House settlement framework, courts have generally been skeptical of broad retroactive claims, dismissing actions on procedural grounds such as statutes of limitation or failures to establish actionable legal duties. For example, in Chalmers v. NCAA, a federal judge dismissed antitrust and related claims by former NCAA athletes as time-barred.8
On the other hand, litigation involving current athletes has increasingly focused on NIL contract enforceability and alleged inducement, rather than antitrust theories.9 High-profile disputes—such as the ongoing litigation involving a former Georgia football player who transferred to another school and is now locked in litigation with his prior institution over NIL compensation—highlight emerging risks around liquidated damages provisions, transfer-related NIL restrictions, and claims that athletes were fraudulently induced to commit or remain at particular institutions, underscoring the growing importance of careful NIL contract drafting, disclosure, and enforcement practices.
V. Sports Betting Expansion and College-Specific Integrity Concerns
Sports betting expanded further in 2025, with additional states—most recently Missouri—launching legal wagering markets.10 This expansion has heightened integrity concerns for college athletics, particularly regarding athlete harassment, insider‑information risks, and the growth of player‑specific wagering markets.
Industry observers have characterized 2025 as a potential inflection point, citing betting-related scandals, regulatory scrutiny, and the emergence of lesser-regulated prediction markets tied to sports outcomes.11 For college athletics, these developments raise distinct concerns given the accessibility of student-athletes, the prevalence of social-media-driven harassment, and the NCAA's stated opposition to betting products and prediction markets that may incentivize interference with athlete decision-making, including transfer-related activity.12
Looking Ahead to 2026
As college sports enters an enforcement‑driven era, stakeholders should prepare for increased CSC investigative activity, continued litigation testing NIL and revenue‑sharing frameworks, ongoing judicial uncertainty, and intensified focus on betting‑related integrity risks. In this environment, institutions and affiliated entities face increased legal and regulatory exposure if NIL arrangements, revenue-sharing practices, and related compliance processes are not carefully structured, documented, and monitored. Stakeholders should evaluate existing contracts, disclosure practices, and internal controls with an eye toward CSC disclosure requirements, potential Title IX challenges, and disputes arising from NIL valuation, third-party involvement, or betting-related integrity concerns. Institutions should also consider whether they are making appropriate resources and information available to student-athletes, particularly in light of the NCAA's public positions on NIL, transfers, and sports-betting activity, and the risk that inconsistent or incomplete guidance could give rise to compliance, enforcement, or negligence claims.
Steptoe will continue to monitor these developments and advise clients navigating this rapidly evolving regulatory environment.
1 House v. NCAA, No. 4:20‑cv‑03919 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025).
2 Id. See also Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions, AP News (June 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-4355c0db8bb2eaa4248650594f157053.
3 College Sports Commission, https://www.collegesportscommission.org/ (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
4 College Athlete Payment System, https://collegeathletepaymentsystem.com/ (last visited Dec. 22, 2025).
5 College Sports Commission, Revenue Sharing, https://www.collegesportscommission.org/revenue-sharing/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2025).
6 College Sports Commission, NIL Information, https://www.collegesportscommission.org/nil (last visited Dec. 22, 2025).
7 See, e.g., House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919, Dkts. 982–985 (N.D. Cal.).
8 NCAA Case Dismissal Poses Hurdle for Other NIL Antitrust Suits, Bloomberg Law (May 2, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ncaa-case-dismissal-poses-hurdle-for-other-nil-antitrust-suits-1.
9 Damon Wilson II Sues University of Georgia Over NIL and Transfer Dispute, New York Times (Dec. 23, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6914369/2025/12/23/damon-wilson-lawsuit-georgia-missouri-nil/.
10 Missouri Legalizes Sports Betting, Becoming 39th State to Do So, ESPN (Dec. 22, 2025), https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/47163346/missouri-legalizes-sports-gambling-becoming-39th-state-do-so.
11 Scandals, prediction markets: Is 2025 a turning point for sports betting?, ESPN (Dec. 19, 2025). https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/47337056/scandals-prediction-markets-2025-turning-point-sports-betting.
12 NCAA 'Vehemently Opposes' Prediction Markets for College Transfer Portal, USA TODAY (Dec. 18, 2025), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/12/18/kalshi-prediction-market-ncaa-transfer-portal-betting/87825220007/.House v. NCAA: From Litigation To Live Governance
